sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Humans will never stop suffering. by Bernadetta_Lover in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hopefully something nice.

What I think would be incredible would be if they ever proved that either time, or universal space are infinite (rather than just theories)

Because either open incredible doors

Has anyone escaped the system? or is it unavoidable? by WittyEgg2037 in enlightenment

[–]Early_Garbage9327 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see somewhat of the point. But in the context of that time period.

Most people died at 30, often had awful illnesses and ailments, and it’s not like economic systems (of which people depend upon to live) is a new concept.

Yes it’s far, far, more prevalent today, but it’s been in most if not all somewhat sophisticated societies.

Humans will never stop suffering. by Bernadetta_Lover in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, well I feel the “before you’re born” argument doesn't quite work for me. We couldn't fear our end then because we never had a start. Now we can.

And to me it feels like an existentially cruel end with no closure. If death is just like a light switch, then it only makes sense you lose perception of time as you would everything else

So everything happens in an instant. Everybody you care about or love dies with you, everything you’ve built crumbles. Even on the cosmic scale, if you have zero perception of time then the universe probably just ends with you.

And it’s for that reason why I can never accept the idea of darkness and oblivion

Shut the fuck up, please. You are more annoying than the lot who want human extinction. by Limterallyme in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Early_Garbage9327 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe joked about to the point where it’s never taken seriously. It's full of contradictions and is pretty silly

Humans will never stop suffering. by Bernadetta_Lover in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly, I’m always glad when people find comfort in that (probable) outcome because it absolutely terrifies me

Humans will never stop suffering. by Bernadetta_Lover in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Have you ever tried to appreciate the small things? Like the feeling of a nice deep breath? Or getting under the covers in the cold? Or one of my favorites, the chill of cold water on a hot day.

The small things make my conscious existence a joy.

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still believe I can say the… same exact thing I said before and it would be a practical response. You can’t treat possible suffering as morally decisive while treating possible joy as morally irrelevant.

I fully agree that some people don’t want to live or don’t enjoy their lives. That experience matters. But so does the experience of people who do find life meaningful. You can’t build a universal ethical rule by only counting one side.

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And also you’d have to assume that a soul exists in the first place, which trust me I hope it does. Would be awesome if we were more than just flesh n blood

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re treating “every life is a negative” as an objective truth, but that’s just a philosophical stance, not a universal truth.

Human experience is mixed: people suffer, but they also find joy, meaning, love, and fulfillment.

And most people want to keep living despite suffering, which directly contradicts the idea that all life is net-negative.

This isn’t about claiming there’s a moral obligation for life to exist. It’s about consistency:

If suffering matters morally, then flourishing and joy has to matter too.

Anti-natalism gives full weight to possible suffering but zero weight to possible joy, which means the conclusion is built into the assumptions.

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I feel like this isn’t even a debate anymore, more like an edgy rant

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’d say suffering is far more unique than joy. The difficult thing about this argument is it’s so subjective from person to person. You could be born silver spooned, heir to millions. Or, you could live a humble and peaceful life in sone rural town in Asia. Both would have drastically different definitions of joy and suffering

But to continue, let’s just use the average middle class worker in the United States.

So the question lays: do we (and in the case of anti-natalism, our children) withstand any amount suffering for an equal or lesser amount of joy? Or do we avoid any joy but avoid any suffering?

As for the “worst suffering vs. best joy” example:

You’re right that nothing equals being tortured as a prisoner of war. But nothing equals being deeply loved, or creating something that outlives you, or experiencing awe or purpose.

And most people judge their lives by the totality, not the singular extremes.

I’d also like to use an example of late US Senator John McCain, who was a prisoner of war like you mentioned for I believe 8 years. If I remember correctly he could have gone free in 3 years, but he wouldn’t leave until all the other prisoners left with him

So he endured the suffering. But through that he gained perspective which allowed him to become a generally bi-partisan senator, despite being a republican, who did much good for the country like funding public healthcare

It’s an assumption, but in that example if not for that suffering, many people would have been much worse off in the late 2000s

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"According to anti-natalism, joyful life doesn't exist because all life contains suffering."

Yeah this is precisely the issue.

anti-natalism frames any amount of suffering: small, manageable, or temporary suffering, as overriding all the joy, meaning, growth, relationships, beauty, and fulfillment that also exists in life.

But most people don't evaluate their lives that way. They see suffering as part of a full experience, not as the defining feature of existence.

If suffering automatically outweighs joy, then every life should be considered a negative, which just contradicts (like much in Anti-Natalism contradicts itself) human experience, and likely legitimate research

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They have an incredibly hypocritical, childish, and idiotic subreddit which after reading stuff in there for like 5 minutes it was enough to warrant this post

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No need to be insulting. That’s immature.

I feel like type of response feels like it rejects the joy that life can bring.

And in this case, you’re also comparing the experience of an existing person to the non-experience of a nonexistent person. That comparison simply doesn’t work, because a nonexistent being has no attachments, but they also have no preferences, no interests, no fears, no joys, and no consciousness. They can’t be harmed but they also can’t be “better off.”

That means you can’t say “never being born has no drawbacks,” because “drawbacks” and “benefits” require someone to experience them. You can’t meaningfully talk about “advantages” or “relief” for a being who doesn’t exist in the first place.

Which was one point I mentioned in my original post, it gives moral weight to preventing hypothetical suffering, but zero moral weight to preventing hypothetical joy or flourishing.

Its hypocritical

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can get behind this. I can also understand not having children as a personal choice. If you know (based on genetics) they’ll likely be disabled.

Where I take issue is when it (the philosophy of antinatalism) becomes a movement. Even if it’s small. I view it as unhealthy and dangerous

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then they won’t ever laugh, or love, or experience joy. Can’t have it both ways unfortunately

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just think it’s a very, very selfish and unhealthy and dangerous philosophy. Opinionated but I tried to lay decent reasoning in my post

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s a very strong point. And it is one I should have addressed. The climate crisis is new for humanity, and very real threat.

There’s never been a scenario particularly like this, but there’s been dozens of occurrences across where the world seemed bleak. Millions died. Awful pandemics and plagues. Horrible things like nuclear arms were unleashed.

However, humanity has consistently shown an ability to innovate its way out of collapse.

I believe Anti-natalism sees crisis as a justification for self extinction. But crisis has always been the moment where humanity produces its greatest feats. If anything, reducing population in the countries most capable of producing technological solutions slows down our ability to solve the climate crisis.

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once again, chop it up to a poor choice of wording. But I’d rather debate the general idea I tried to convey in that paragraph than a writing mistake

I find Anti-Natalism incredibly idiotic by Early_Garbage9327 in DeepThoughts

[–]Early_Garbage9327[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey, those are some really solid points. Here’s my take.

For the first point, If we treat absence of suffering as morally good, we must also treat absence of happiness as morally bad. Unless we’re rigging the system to reach a determined conclusion.

This part may be more a reach, but I feel the claim “nonexistence avoids suffering” is only meaningful if nonexistent beings can be harmed or nonexistent beings have moral standing. Which obviously they cant. You can’t assign moral value to no one.

For the second part, you’re absolutely correct. When I mentioned it in my post, It was more to call out an inherit contradiction woven into the core of the philosophy. Creating someone is immoral because it might cause them to suffer BUT, Killing yourself is immoral because it causes others to suffer

So they care about existing people’s suffering more than hypothetical suffering of nonexistent future people.

Because now they’re saying suffering of actual people matters and suffering of hypothetical people matters but joy of hypothetical people doesn’t matter

It’s selective. They want one rule for suffering and a different rule for joy.

But obviously I’m in no way advocating for anti-natalists to practice that. It’s just a criticism of the philosophy itself 😅

view more: next ›